or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supercross / GS

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
In other threads I have seen many describe Supercross Ski's as a GS Ski. I belive there is a difference. Example Atomic SXB5 /SX11 Turn raidious is less than a GS ski but more than an SL or all Mountain. Why do manufactures make a Supercross and GS ski??
post #2 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
Why do manufactures make a Supercross and GS ski??

For supercross races?
post #3 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
In other threads I have seen many describe Supercross Ski's as a GS Ski. I belive there is a difference. Example Atomic SXB5 /SX11 Turn raidious is less than a GS ski but more than an SL or all Mountain. Why do manufactures make a Supercross and GS ski??
Similar skis in construction but SX skis have a turn radius between a true GS race ski (FIS limits turn radius to no less than 21M). Turn radii on SX skis are typically 15-18M which is better for SX.

This construction, IMHO, makes a great expert hard snow recreational ski. I have a pair of Atomic SX11s and will buy something else next season for my hard snow ski. Gives you the best of both worlds....stability, edge hold and quick turns. Some skiers prefer longer (than are used in actual racing) slalom racing skis but I find them too nervous.
post #4 of 39
This has already been mentioned in some other thread earlier this winter:

The high-performance "skicross" skis are not for skicross races but for skiing on groomers and hardpack, practically slightly wider underfoot street-legal versions of GS skis with more sidecut.

The skicross racers use GS skis which have less sidecut and are faster.

Some lower-level "skicross" skis are just recreational skis with the fashionable cross label.

The best skicross skis are said to be very good race skis for the level racing not requiring FIS-legal dimensions.
post #5 of 39
So, if the SX racers are using regular GS skis for skiercross races, are they skiing them in a shorter length than they would if they were racing GS?

The Stockli Laser Cross Pro is supposed to be a "real" skiercross ski, but it is wider than the FIS GS ski.

I like the "longer" (177cm - mine are Volkl P50 Slalom Carvers) slalom race skis for hard pack recreational skiing, although they are pretty hard to find in the States (they are quite available in Europe, however.)

I don't find them nervous at all. Even the P50 SC Racing ski in 170cm is pretty rock solid in high speed mid to long radius turns.
post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdow
So, if the SX racers are using regular GS skis for skiercross races, are they skiing them in a shorter length than they would if they were racing GS?
I guess the World Champion and Worldcup winner Tomas Kraus uses the 190 cm Fischers.
To be quite sure I would have to ask him or a buddy of his from the Czech team. I will on some occasion.
post #7 of 39
all of our ski cross guys ( casy puckett, christ brothers, eric archer, etc.) all ski 193-195 gs skis with cross graphics. most all production cross skis employ race construction and make great all mtn. skis. the cross segment for consumers was very successfull for most every company but look for it to be going away (remamed and repositioned) in the next couple of years.
post #8 of 39
This is as bad as car racing. The win on Sunday car is no longer the same car you can buy on Monday.

It's bad enough that the "racing" ski you buy in the store doesn't have the same flex as the racing ski you see being raced on TV. Now the ski-cross ski winning the "ski-cross" race isn't even a "ski-cross" ski.

It's just sad. Why can't they call a 3 a 3? Why do they have to call it a 9 to get people to buy it?
post #9 of 39
Thread Starter 
Good posts so far!! I was ignorant in this area. I don't buy ski's that often. My last upgrade (If you want to call it that) was the begining of this past ski season. I trashed my K2 Four 88's (200$ worth of base welds to get them back) So I went ski shopping. I demo'ed Fisher RX9 2004. (Loved it) Also SX11 (180) 2003 models. Not as confidence enspiring as the Fishers but very close in performance. XS11 (200$) RX9 800$

So now I have 70+ Days on a pair of SX11's (180cm) They are not GS ski's I like them they are fun. I am happy on them in most conditions.

But looking @ posts about differnt ski's caused me to beg the question, Whats the difference between ??

So true Supercross racing ski's are GS Construction but not FIS legal? (And not available off the rack in any ski shop)
My Atomic 2003 SX11 (180cm) with the AFT approved logo on them are nice all mountain cruser ski's but not the same animal used by Atomic free syle team to run SuperCross races.

Does this about sum it up??

PS: The SX11's @180 Versus K2Four 88 (188cm)

Atomics> Faster turn initiation, Better edge grip @ very high g. Tighter turn shapes.

K2's > More forgiving ski. Easier to criuse at lower speeds. Much more stable @ high speed. ( Slightly on edge on groomed Black runs) 60 to 80 MPH. (The SX11 Does not like this)
post #10 of 39
MTT,
Your probably the first poster I've come across that found the SX11s speed limit. Please tell us, if you can, at what speed does it lose its prowess?

I wasn't able to get to a good enough hill to max out an SX11 at 170 cm, but I did notice that the SX10 at 170cm felt great right up until it lost it's abilities somewhere in the ballpark of 40 mph; I'm guessing the speed. Noteworthy is that it (the sx10) inspired more confidence at about 35 than an Equipe 10 SC, but the Equipe 10 could make corners at that speed the SX10 didn't have the grip for. BTW the SX11 blew both skis out of the water in the high speed performance department.
post #11 of 39
Thread Starter 
[quote=Ghost]MTT,
Your probably the first poster I've come across that found the SX11s speed limit. Please tell us, if you can, at what speed does it lose its prowess?

I half to guess @ the speed and educated guess is 6o+MPH. I have been clocked for speed (traps) on a fixed course and with a radar gun, so I have a vague idea of how fast I am traveling.
That said I have doubts about the binding setup on my Atomics right now. Information I came accorss in this forum leads me to belive that my set up may not be optimal @ this time.
The Atomics have slowed me down this year. I have not had nearly as much interaction with Ski Patrol as in past years.

I get stoped occasionaly by ski patrol. They never warn or pull pass. Its always we have had complaints about you today, (Please be carfull where and when you)

MTT
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdow
So, if the SX racers are using regular GS skis for skiercross races, are they skiing them in a shorter length than they would if they were racing GS?

The Stockli Laser Cross Pro is supposed to be a "real" skiercross ski, but it is wider than the FIS GS ski.

I like the "longer" (177cm - mine are Volkl P50 Slalom Carvers) slalom race skis for hard pack recreational skiing, although they are pretty hard to find in the States (they are quite available in Europe, however.)

I don't find them nervous at all. Even the P50 SC Racing ski in 170cm is pretty rock solid in high speed mid to long radius turns.
A ski with a 21-26M turn radius compared to one with a 15-18M radius is more "nervous" due to the geometry of the skis. It is a matter of geometry rather than feel.

Also, the typical torsion box construction of a slalom ski is not as stable at speed as the typical laminate construction of a GS or SX type ski. Different animals.
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
MTT,
Your probably the first poster I've come across that found the SX11s speed limit. Please tell us, if you can, at what speed does it lose its prowess?

I wasn't able to get to a good enough hill to max out an SX11 at 170 cm, but I did notice that the SX10 at 170cm felt great right up until it lost it's abilities somewhere in the ballpark of 40 mph; I'm guessing the speed. Noteworthy is that it (the sx10) inspired more confidence at about 35 than an Equipe 10 SC, but the Equipe 10 could make corners at that speed the SX10 didn't have the grip for. BTW the SX11 blew both skis out of the water in the high speed performance department.
I have yet to find the speed limit of the sx11 and the edge hold on boiler plate has been sensational....only surpased by FIS legal GS racing skis. There is a big difference between the performance of the sx10 and sx11 when you are pushing the skis. The 10 is the "mild child" and the 11 is the "wild child." More aggressive skiers or racers ( in non FIS races) should use the 11. Once you have skied it you will not want the 10 unless you are a more casual skier and/or like a more flexible ski in occasional bumps.
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
So true Supercross racing ski's are GS Construction but not FIS legal? (And not available off the rack in any ski shop)
No, they are, as logruve (and me) said, true "gs skis with cross graphics".
It has been so since the beginning of skicross racing. I had (actually still have as my rock skis, incredible durability) a pair from the first Head factory series (24 pairs) of "skicross" skis from 4 years ago. It had the Mad_Trix graphics but was the standard sandwich GS ski (the last year before the "i" appeared).

While I agree that some ski descriptions presenting FIS non-legal skis as "genuine worldcup machines" or some skicross skis as "genuine skicross weapon of our team" actually are desinformation I don´t see why 185-195 cm skicross skis should be available in shops for people who hardly ever see a skicross race, let alone participate in one.

Btw, there might (?) be an exception: Dynastar Skicross Pro is basically the same ski as the sandwich FIS-legal Course Pro but with a different plate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logruve
the cross segment for consumers was very successfull for most every company but look for it to be going away (remamed and repositioned) in the next couple of years.
Interesting but not so surprising. The association with skicross races got lost and the races seem to remain a discipline with limited impact (the participation in the Olympics could change things some). Considering the ever-present urge and pressure to supply the market with innovations, the growing popularity of wider, more versatile skis even in Europe and the almost complete disappearance of true race skis from the collections of most manufacturers (etc., the list of possible reasons is by far not complete) I really would expect some renaming and repositioning.
Mark, is there more you could say about this future trend?
post #15 of 39
For worldcup Ivan and Logruve are right on the point.
However in European amateur races were one cross course is build for boarders and for skiers a radius of 17-21 m at 185cm is most seen. All true race skies. This might seem strange as raceboards officially lie between 13-15m. But the real turning radius of them is in terms of skis more like 17-21m. With my Slaloms race skis(12m) I can put down much tighter carves than on my board, somewhat similar to a Palmer BX labelled with 10m. Yes, there are many people on "soft" snowboards in Boardercrosses however they have no chance of winning against raceboarders at that level.

The boardercross boards (freestyle/ride type) used on the worldcup are not seen in the shops. Radius is around 15m labelled. They use softboots but insert plastic compound tongues and often have bindings with a locked highback and 3 straps. Those are not available for consumers, even amateur or EC racers will have a hard time purchasing them (not available on pro-form). Their boards are nearly as stiff as consumer high-end raceboards meaning stiffer than skis. Raceboards still have an advantage in speed and stability due to the 15cm longer length (35cm more effective edge) but are not as good in the air for the fights, but better for landing. Raceboards also need longer to change direction. The only companies offering real BX soft boards are Virus and Kessler in Europe, mabey Tomahawk too.
post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimeral
A ski with a 21-26M turn radius compared to one with a 15-18M radius is more "nervous" due to the geometry of the skis. It is a matter of geometry rather than feel.

Also, the typical torsion box construction of a slalom ski is not as stable at speed as the typical laminate construction of a GS or SX type ski. Different animals.
I don't know, maybe it's the tune, but I've skied the 170cm Volkl P50 SC Racing all out with large radius turns and they felt rock solid without the tip forcing the turn. I equate a feeling of stability without a twitchy tip that allows different turn radii with a ski not being nervous, am I wrong?

Do all slalom skis have torsion box construction over laminate construction? A guy at one of the race-oriented shops at Killington told me the current P60 SC World Cup ski was a laminate.
post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkracer
. . . the growing popularity of wider, more versatile skis even in Europe and the almost complete disappearance of true race skis from the collections of most manufacturers . . .
That's not what I've seen in Europe. At Selva, this March, the place was awash with Volkl P60 GS Racing, P60 SC Racing, P60 RC Racing, and P60 Slalom Carvers. I've never seen so many race Volkls, even on the boots of low intermediate level female skiers. I only saw 2 pairs of 6*s in six days of skiing and not a single EXP or 724 Pro.
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdow
That's not what I've seen in Europe. At Selva, this March, the place was awash with Volkl P60 GS Racing, P60 SC Racing, P60 RC Racing, and P60 Slalom Carvers. I've never seen so many race Volkls, even on the boots of low intermediate level female skiers. I only saw 2 pairs of 6*s in six days of skiing and not a single EXP or 724 Pro.
Selva is Italy and Italy is the most racing obsessed country in Europe. I took part in a big international ski test which had a special race stock category just for the Italian market. The Italian mountains (the Dolomites) have not much off-piste and groomers are very important.
What you see in Italy (at one place only) is nor representative for Europe. Europe is not a homogenous skiing culture. If you watch the skiers in Chamonix you would come to an opposite conclusion: they are all crazy after freeriding...
Which is also not true generally - yet in Chamonix or La Grave it is...

Besides, I wrote "disappearance of true race skis" and didn´t mean those pseudoracers like SC/RC Racing or Slalom carvers.

The growth of popularity is rather slow but sure. You can´t expect people jumping massively onto 75-90 mm skis when the only skiing they have is on groomers.
Sorry, this is already off-topic.
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkracer
. . .What you see in Italy (at one place only) is nor representative for Europe. Europe is not a homogenous skiing culture. If you watch the skiers in Chamonix you would come to an opposite conclusion: they are all crazy after freeriding...
Which is also not true generally - yet in Chamonix or La Grave it is...
Selva is not the only place in Europe I've skied (I've been going there for over ten years and have skied about 20 resorts in Switzerland, Italy, France and Austria) and I agree that Chamonix and La Grave is hardly typical of Europe. Most Europeans wouldn't even consider going off-piste and I think Selva seemed pretty typical of the type of skiing most Euros do. Last year, I was in Verbier and I also saw a lot of Volkl race skis and very few Supersports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by checkracer
Besides, I wrote "disappearance of true race skis" and didn´t mean those pseudoracers like SC/RC Racing or Slalom carvers. . . .
Well, they are still a race ski and you seemed to be talking about the style of ski, especially since you did not specify World Cup or Race Stock. Besides, when was a large part of the population skiing on "true race skis?"
post #20 of 39
Okay, your impressions are not only Selva-based (which I could not know). We should probably agree that skiing groomers is more typical in Europe with many more Europeans preferring them and using corresponding gear.

Otoh, I insist on some - rather slow - shift in the skiers´ thinking and on growing acceptance of slightly wider skis. This shift may not be very visible and may not be apparent at some places at certain parts of the season but as a general trend it´s hardly to be denied.
Still, America/Canada (west) are a different world with a different gear philosophy.

Second, having said "true race skis" I did mean race stock, e.g. skis you don´t find in most catalogs any more.
Their catalog disappearance is the only thing I said about them. Whether "a large part of the population" uses them or not (of course not but I hope we won´t be discussing such trivial truths) is absolutely irrelevant and I don´t see any use discussing this point.

With full respect for what you think and write there have been too many posts dealing with race stock, WC, non race stock, etc. I really don´t want this cross/GS thread to be hijacked that way.
post #21 of 39
I don't think talking about GS skis is hijacking this thread since it has been revealed that Skiercross racers actually use GS racestock skis. As far as race stock skis disappearing from catalogs, I think, at least for Volkl, they've only had them in the US catalog for two years since the P60 series started, and they've only been available to the general public since the second P50 series.

I'm still not convinced that there is a shift to fatter skis, at least not skis fatter than 68 - 70 mm for a versatile, all-mountain skis and then not in Europe where they seem to be quite taken with the 65 mm waisted race carver and the 64 mm slalom carvers, which aren't available in the US and occupy a large portion of the ski wall in the big Munich ski shop.
post #22 of 39
If you ever watched a supercross race and a GS race then compared them you would know why they make supercross and GS skis.
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atown313
If you ever watched a supercross race and a GS race then compared them you would know why they make supercross and GS skis.
Please elaborate.
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atown313
If you ever watched a supercross race and a GS race then compared them you would know why they make supercross and GS skis.
???
post #25 of 39
What I meant was the type or turns and terrain(course) they are skiing. Supercross skis need to make shorter turns than a GS ski.
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atown313
What I meant was the type or turns and terrain(course) they are skiing. Supercross skis need to make shorter turns than a GS ski.
So why not use a World Cup level ski with a non-FIS legal sidecut: say a "Volkl P60 GC Racing Stock?" (I know it doesn't exist, at least not for sale to the public).
post #27 of 39
those "cheater" skis have too much sidecut. less shape means down the hill...down the hill is faster than across the hill. radius-wise, real sx courses don't typically require any more than a GS course.
post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by logruve
those "cheater" skis have too much sidecut.
Is there any truth to the rumor that FIS (a French organization?) banned these "cheater" skis, as you call them, because they were perfectly suited to Bode Miller's unique style and he would have destroyed the entire World Cup field instead of merely winning the World Cup? I know the official line was they cause racers to fly off course more frequently, but it wouldn't be the first time a "safety" justification was used as a pretext to rationalize more sinister motives.
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdow
Is there any truth to the rumor that FIS (a French organization?) banned these "cheater" skis, as you call them, because they were perfectly suited to Bode Miller's unique style and he would have destroyed the entire World Cup field instead of merely winning the World Cup?
That´s one of the funniest ski rumors I have heard recently!
Some of the FIS (F for Federation, not French - just in case someone doesn´t know) restrictions might be disputable but they were introduced when Bode was just a very promising young racer transferring from K2 to Fischer and had still to learn some before he could smoke the Austrians.
Btw, I met professor Nachbauer who is the man behind the calculations on which the limits are based, and a good friend of mine is his schoolmate.
Otoh, afaik, some conservative people in the FIS had their share too.

Atown313:
Unless there are some NA-specific "supercross races" (which I don´t know and never heard about with the exception of X-games) we were speaking about the ski(er)cross organized by FIS as a World Cup competition and World Championships race.
As to the suitability of skis regarding these races I recommend some previous posts by logruve and myself.

"The skicross racers use GS skis which have less sidecut and are faster."
"less shape means down the hill...down the hill is faster than across the hill."
post #30 of 39
[QUOTE

Unless there are some NA-specific "supercross races" (which I don´t know and never heard about with the exception of X-games) we were speaking about the ski(er)cross organized by FIS as a World Cup competition and World Championships race.
As to the suitability of skis regarding these races I recommend some previous posts by logruve and myself.

QUOTE]
I have never heard of a "supercross" race either; I think someone has confused a brand name (Atomic's Supercross) with ski cross, the event. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion